[Assam] My do paise 10-0524/ Re: Naxal Etc.

[uttam borthakur]

I have been following the animated discussion on the concept of armed revolution being an outdated one in today’s world with great puzzlement. I am puzzled, because, if the concept (idea) is outdated (not relevant; not applicable; archaic), then why the passion?
 
The passion remains, because, this supposedly ‘outdated’ concept is accepted and practiced as a solution to problems besetting the society by a section of the people. So, it remains fashionable for such people and they do not consider it as obsolete.
 
Since the idea is still in vogue, and it is a matter of choice, why is this castigation of a particular fashion by some others who do not like to wear drain-pipes like the followers of the ‘armed revolution’. 
 
Basically, violent and armed revolution, if successful, be it temporal, ruins the dinner party of those who profit from the status quo, and the upsetting of the apple-cart is so sudden that those used to a comfortable way of life under the ongoing social system would surely balk at such prospect. That is the reason for the vehemence.
 
Now, both armed revolution and smooth change through non-violence are models for social changes. The proposition that armed revolution is an outdated concept or the redundancy of a model has to be examined from a scientific view-point, and should be peer-reviewed. It requires dispassionate outlook J
 
I find that Mr. Kamath has written a piece which is mostly, if not wholly, an opinion, and not based on any analysis of facts and conclusions derived there from. He probably has an agenda on behalf of the people who may not like their fortunes in the strip-mining affected. Mr. H K Deka has written a piece, which is more topical, and it refers to facts as he sees those. Due to his occupation, we surely know where he would stand; but even he speaks of ‘social justice’ as the panacea, and not bombing, as Mr. Kamath would want us to believe. Mr. Agarawala and Mr. Murthy too have posed before us questions that need to be examined. 
 
Let us consider the ‘royalty’ to the state vis-à-vis enormity of profit from iron mining. Why the Government of India has not done anything about it? This government is theoretically of the people; but practically the slave of the looters, as its actions show. Its spokes-person Chidambaram would emphasize development as the cure to the problem now; but the omissions of the STATE that he represents for the last six decades have created this problem. It is their betrayal of their oaths and the constitution that has led to Mr. Kamath barfing his precious opinions ;and the problems was surely not created by the people who have taken up arms now.
 
Now the question, why people take up arms? Everyone wants to work the day, come back home, relax, have food, and go to sleep. Why would anyone take up arms that is a threat to his own life?
 
A simple example: let us say, a miner wants a piece of land. He would try to buy the land from the poor owner or possessor for pittance. Then he would promise more. If he does not give in, the miner would hire goons, land-sharks to intimidate the person. On failure, one fine morning this person would be found dead or simply vanish. The perpetrators can easily make the police drop charges, because, it is a known fact what greasing the palm can do in India, especially in the very remote areas. If this happens to you and in your close proximity repeatedly over the years, you cannot simply chicken out if you are a man enough, you fall prey to the fashion of ‘armed revolt’, because you are doomed this way or the other. They can only put up a semblance of a fight by taking up arms to defend themselves, as the STATE won't do them justice. It is not an apology; this is the reality in India. It is not simply a question of making profit at someone’s cost;
 it is “extra-economic coercion” that symbolises a feudal economy or in urban context the Mafia-rule. Perhaps that is why these Maoists are saying that Feudalism vis-a-vis the broad masses is the principal contradiction in India, and probably their model has some truth in it, because, they have achieved some initial success by putting their theory to use.
 
Even Chidambaram cannot ruffle the feathers of the vested interest, what does a poor tribal in the remote part of rural India do against such interests with immense money-power behind them. We cannot lose sight of these realities in trying to examine the present situation with our own sense of right and wrong. It is a human problem; and even Mr. Kamath may agree that ‘humanism’ is not obsolete. Even Mao, the demigod of the Maoists, who declared that 'revolution is not a dinner party’ had allowed the US supported Chiang-Kai-Shek to flee after defeat.

Uttam Kumar Borthakur